LotR - Foreword

[The Saucepan Man]

Davem

Which is not to say we can't read it as simple entertainment. We just have to recognise that it wasn't written as that.

I tend to agree that Tolkien did not write the story purely to entertain his readers. It assumed greater importance than this to him, which is, I suspect, why we get the sense that it almost wrote itself. But I disagree that we, the readers, necessarily have to recognise that or that he is requiring us to do so.

If we are looking at the Foreword for what it is, a foreword, rather than as part of the material on which to base an assessment of Tolkien the author (and, indeed, Tolkien, the man), then we must take what he says in it at face value. Readers approaching his work for the first time will have nothing else to go on. And here he is telling such readers that he wrote it as a piece to entertain, to move and to amuse them. While his reference to the Ring as providing the central theme points to the importance of the conflict between good and evil as a theme, readers do not necessarily have to accept this conflict as something which is real to them (or as real to them as the material which you have provided suggest that it was to Tolkien). They may simply find certain aspects of it, certain “sub-themes”, for example the importance of friendship or the the importance of respect for the environment, as applicable to them and leave it at that. Or they might simply allow themselves to be entertained, amused and moved by it without really analysing why. And Tolkien gives them carte blanche to do so here in the Foreword when he champions the freedom of the reader above the purposive domination of the author. He may have hoped that his readers found in it what he did, but he does not here require this of them.

[Firefoot]

And now I believe I finally have something to contibute here.

Readers approaching his work for the first time will have nothing else to go on.

I agree with this statement very much, and that is why I find it both amazing and sad how few people I talk to actually take the time to read both the Foreward and the Prologue. When I was a first time reader, I remember being particularly intrigued by the Foreward, especially by such sentences as "I stood at Balin's tomb in Moria" and references to Lothlórien. These things made me wonder, and I was eager to read to find out what he was talking about. Then I came across the statements "Some who have read the book... have found it boring, absurd, or contemptible; ... It is perhaps not possible in a long tale to please everybody at all points, nor to displease everybody at the same points; for I find from the letters that I have received that the passages or chapters that are to some a blemish are all by others specially approved." I had no concerns about the first idea: having recently read the Hobbit and finding it an amazing book I had been waiting for nearly a week to start LotR. But the rest of it made me wonder just what I was getting into. So before I had even started the book I was already interested, curious, and intrigued, and I must wonder what sort of a difference there is between reading the Foreward (and the Prologue) first rather than just plunging in at chapter 1.

[Bêthberry]

SaucepanMan and Firefoot, this was really what I was suggesting way back in my first post when I noted that the Second Foreward did not contain the statements of intent which can be found in the Letters. How are we regarding this chapter by chapter reading? Firefoot's remembrance is I think close to what I would find very intriguing about our process here.

SpM's statement: Readers approaching his work for the first time will have nothing else to go on.

Perhaps few of us here can 'go back' and recall entirely what it was like the first time we read LOTR (for some it was so long ago! ). Others cannot dismiss easily everything we have learned about Tolkien from a variety of other sources. It is not easy to return ourselves to the state of naive (I would use the word virgin, but fear many might object to that concept) reader again. Still, I think it would be very interesting to discuss here in this sub-forum the process whereby so many come to see the moral intent which they profoundly profess to find in Tolkien's work and which his Letters suggest. How and where and by what means do these readers take on this meaning where others do not?

My first post seemed to provoke a sense that this moral intent must be found in the Forewards. None of the arguments put forth by davem or Mr Underhill or Helen persuade me that Tolkien was obliquely hinting at a specifically Christian or Catholic meaning in the Forewards. Instead, I see, as Saucy has suggested, that Tolkien

may have hoped that his readers found in it what he did, but he does not here require this of them.

Tolkien is not the only author who takes this kind of approach, believing that his or her book serves a particular purpose, but wanting to leave readers free to find that purpose for themselves. (For those of you who might be curious, Charlotte Brontë was another author who wrote explicitly to create a 'page turner' but who also left records which suggest that she was content to sit back and let readers make of Jane Eyre what they would, simply a straight forward romance or a more complex perspective on the narrator, Jane, as a girl whose imagination is governed and controlled by her own reading in romance. Note, I am not saying this specific interpretation applies to LOTR, but the method.)

I think this moral freedom of the reader is absolutely imperative in Tolkien and relates crucially to his notion of free will. Telling readers explicitly as Lewis or the author of the Morte d'Arthur has done that there is a specific worldview that one must get from the books was, I believe, for Tolkien the wrong way to help people find the moral bearings which he discovered as he wrote in his story.

Tolkien came slowly to understand the full significance of his mythology--it was not something he planned consciously at the outset, but was led to realise in the very process of his writing. This, by the way, is for me a very significant point about writing, that the very act of writing somehow engages the creative mind to generate ideas. (It is certainly a way I come to know the characters I create in RPGs despite all the planning aforehand.) Mr. Underhill is very right to point out that there are different ways of proceeding as a writer and this was Tolkien's way.

I suggest that Tolkien wanted his readers to proceed in a similar way, to find for themselves in the act of reading this vital and profound truth if possible. He was content to accept the possibility, perhaps even probability, that not all readers would necessarily find this, but would still find worth and value in his writing. Perhaps Tolkien learnt, from his insistence that Edith convert to Catholicism for their marriage and her subsequent unhappiness or unease with various aspects of it, that faith is a personal experience that cannot be forced. (The Catholic Church does not itself demand that spouses convert to Catholicism upon marriage with a Catholic and this idea is speculation of course.)

All of this is, of course, an interpretation of the man and the writer based on my reading of his Letters and other works and various biographies. Yet even today when I read the Forewards, I see a writer content to suggest a general direction and tenor of interpretation without stating explicitly what his meaning was. Very few writers of the calibre of Tolkien choose to be so 'flatfooted' or empirical about their work. They rather hope that the writing itself will lend itself to interpretation without extraneous signposts. They place their faith in the story itself rather than in prose exposition about it.

I would reply to Durelin about my use of the term "personal self-expression" but I am called away and must return later.

[tar-ancalime]

Bethberry said:

I think this moral freedom of the reader is absolutely imperative in Tolkien and relates crucially to his notion of free will.

I think it goes even farther than that: it is a way for Tolkien as an artist to show confidence in the art he has made. Only if the reader (or listener, or viewer--this is true of any medium) is free to interpret the art as s/he sees fit can the creator ever know if it stands alone and achieves any meaning at all, let alone the intended one. Authors who use forewords to go on endlessly about meaning or metaphor have always seemed to me to be the literary equivalent of parents who can't stop smoothing cowlicks, straightening collars, and wiping faces long enough to send their children out into the world to succeed or fail. And in the end, that's what any piece of art has got to do: regardless of the high or low intentions of the creator, it must stand on its merits. Both Tolkien and Bronte are quite right to step back and let their readers find what they will in their stories.

[davem]

Bethberry:

'Tolkien came slowly to understand the full significance of his mythology--it was not something he planned consciously at the outset, but was led to realise in the very process of his writing.'

Up to a point - yet his mythology grew out of the 'soil' of the TCBS, as much as it grew out of his love of mythology & language, & the TCBS was essentially a High Church/Catholic group of individuals, who had a dream of bringing back 'medieval' moral values & virtues to the modern, secular world. The Legendarium did what he wanted it to do. Or at least it bacame what he wanted it to become.

Of course no-one needs to accept his value system or accept his beliefs, anymore than they need to study Sindarin, or learn the Tengwar, or even read the Silmarillion, to understand LotR. My own feeling though, is that the more you know of the man & his beliefs the more you will gain from the books. I still can't go along with the idea that the art can be totally divorced from the artist.

One can read LotR in two ways, & get different things from both - it can be read as a fairy story, a traditional tale, in which any 'meaning' it may have for the individual is 'imposed' by that individual, who will decide whether the story is relevant to them or not. This seems to be what Tolkien wishes his readers to do with LotR.

But the novel can also be read as the product of Tolkien's mind, moral value system, personal experiences transformed into epic story.

I feel there is something to be gained from both. The first gives us access to Middle Earth, the art, the second gives us access to the man, the artist. The Legendarium is not simply the story of Middle Earth, it is also the story of Tolkien himself. Is the one to be considered relevant & the other irrelevant?

This is why I feel we have to take into account Tolkien's beliefs & values. Take Lembas (& to a lesser extent Miruvor). Can we truly understand what Tolkien is doing if we limit ourselves only to what Lembas is in Middle Earth? Lembas is too much like the Host, the body of Christ - & statements Tolkien makes about it in the story itself & in the letters make it abundantly clear that it is as close to being an allegory of the Host as it is being simply an Elven food concentrate. Now, only a Catholic would come up with Lembas - a non Catholic writer would simply have produced a magic food concetrate, which would not have the symbolic value of Lembas (Yet if we see Lembas as the Host what do we make of movie Gollum taking it & casting it away, & accusing Sam of stuffing his face with it? The point I'm trying to make with this example is that in the movie, Lembas is not a 'sacramental' substance, it is merely a food concentrate, so there is no sgnificance in the way it is treated). If we don't see Lembas in the light of the Host, divorcing what it meant to Tolkien the Catholic from its presence in the story, we won't get a real insight into what Lembas is, even in its Middle Earth form. The fact that it is Galadriel who gives the Lembas to the Fellowship emphasises her 'Virgin Mary' aspect.

That's just an example which springs to mind, & will be better pursued when we get to the relevant chapter. The point is, though, that LotR is full of such symbolism, which is not present on the surface, but it is there, under the surface, & is as much a part of the 'art' as what is on the surface. LotR is a work which contains many primary world elements 'mythologised'.

Is Lembas 'unsuccessfully' mythologised? Should Tolkien have gone further in (Middle)'Earthing' it, so that there would be no reason to connect it with the Host? Yet no Catholic could fail to see the symbolism. And what better way to bring out Galadriel's nature than by linking her with such a life giving substance?

Galadriel as Elven Queen, offering the Fellowship food concentrate bars, or Galadriel as 'pointing to' the Mother of God offering the body of Christ to preserve the lives of those who must Harrow Hell. How important is Tolkien's belief to our understanding of the story?

[Mister Underhill]

Very succinctly and well put, tar-ancalime!

Bethberry -- for the record, I wasn't trying to persuade anyone that "Tolkien was obliquely hinting at a specifically Christian or Catholic meaning in the Forewards". On the contrary, I think in Tolkien's view it was "fatal" to try to overtly impose or even discuss meaning or to link the truths of his story to a specific system. I think Tolkien would agree with the excerpt I posted on our old friend, the Canonicity thread, regarding story. For those not inclined to click over, the salient point is this: "A great story authenticates its ideas solely within the dynamics of its events."

I think this is why Tolkien resists, as Saucepan has observed, getting specific about theme and meaning, though you can feel the temptation to lecture burning behind his refutation of certain approaches and interpretations which had arisen in the ten years between First and Second Forewords (incidentally, Sauce, I agree completely with your assessment of Tolkien's use of the term "allegory" in the Foreword -- harmony for once!). He is content to hope that his tale will at times "maybe" excite or deeply move his readers.

And that's as it should be. As t-a has observed, you have to send your children out into the world to stand on their own two feet (or not) sooner or later.

Dang it -- cross-posting with davem means I have neglected his latest provocative post. I have thoughts on it, but alas, not time to address them at the moment.

[Mister Underhill]

Actually, I will add this, briefly -- I think the sort of one-to-one interpretation that equates lembas with the Host is precisely the sort of allegorical reading that Tolkien was trying to discourage.

[Alatariel Telemnar]

That Letter provides interesting correlation, Alatariel Telemnar for Tolkien's claim in the Second Foreward that LOTR was "primarily linguistic in inspiration and begun in order to provide the necessary background of 'history' for Elvish tongues." Thanks for providing it here. Being a great fan of words and language myself, I am not sure that this necessarily downgrades the value of his desire to write a good story. It would think they would be complementary. He would want the best story to highlight or reflect his created languages to their best advantage. For Tolkien as a philologist, everything began with words and structures of language, which then moved out to create patterns and order in stories.

Bêthberry, I agree. For if he would bother with such a story for his languages, of course he would want the best for them. And if I put off anything that made anyone get the feeling that it downgraded anything, then I didn't mean to.

The prime motive was the desire of a taleteller to try his hand at a really long story that would hold attention of readers, amuse them, delight them, and at times, maybe excite them or deeply move them.

Per'aps he was just killing two birds with one stone, as some say (three, possibly?) Maybe he wanted to create a world for his languages, yet write a good story, and hold the attention of readers as well (or, in other words, entertain us.)

[mark12_30]

Mr. Underhill and davem-- about Lembas and the host, as well as Galadriel and Mary (and Aragorn and the harrowing of hell and.... -- Augh! Brakes! Brakes!... phew.)

Regarding Tolkien and the one-to-one correspondence of these things, I agree with you, Mister Underhill, that caution is advised. However I also see davem's point that these things (lembas, Galadriel) sprang from somewhere deep, and I think must bear some imprint of Tolkien's faith. How to reconcile?

A "type" is not the same as an "allegory". A type is an imperfect forshadowing rather than a tight one-to-one correspondence. Allegories are properly one-to-one correspondences. Types are less tightly bound. With this I think Tolkien would have been comfortable, because (from his perspective) types have prophetically arisen in historical personages since the beginning of the Pentateuch.

Alert: Those uninterested in Biblical discussions may happily skip to the next post now.

For those few who are still with me: Isaac, Moses, Joshua, David, Solomon, Jeremiah, and other historical personages are each considered a 'type' of Christ, meaning that they are an imperfect foreshadowing, and it is the 'job' of each of them to foreshadow only certain aspects of Christ, not the whole deal (which would be difficult.) This is the most sensible application here as well. Three of the main characters exhibit imperfect foreshadowings of certain aspects, and may therefore be considered 'types'. (They commonly are.) Taken together, the three make a fair beginning of a picture, whereas any of the three individually would not.

In addition, this leaves room for more 'types' to be discovered. I can think of a Tolkienish fourth right off.

This expands into other areas as well. Lembas, yes; what about Miruvor? Etc. I don't want to go into it here but I think it allows more of Tolkien's own beliefs to shine through (in various places) without his intending to dominate the reader. I interpreted that when he was asked, "Lembas?" his answer was essentially a pleased "Okay, yes, I see that too", not "Well, finally somebody got it."

[davem]

As to Lembas as the 'Host: we have in Letter 210:

'It also has a much larger significance, of what one might hesitatingly call a 'religious' kind. This becomes later apparent, especially in the chapter 'Mount Doom'.

And Letter 213 specifically:

'Or more important , I am a Christian (which can be deduced from my stories), & in fact a Roman catholic. The latter 'fact' perhaps cannot be deduced; though one critic (by letter) asserted that the invocations of elbereth, & the character of Galadriel as directly described (or through the words of Gimli & Sam) were clearly related to Catholic devotion of Mary. Anoother saw in waybread (lembas) = viaticum & the reference to its feeding the will (vol. III, p213) & being more potent when fasting, a derivation from the Eucharist. (That is: far greater things may colour the mind in dealing with the lesser things of a fairy story.)'

We can also take the examples of the Fellowship setting out from Rivendell on Dec 25th, & the destruction of the Ring & the Downfall of Barad Dur taking place on Mar 25th - which as Shippey points out is the date of both the Annunciation & the old date of Good Friday. Neither of these dates has any significance within the calendars of Middle Earth. But their Christian significance is obvious. As perhaps is the 'apocalyptic' ending - a 'sacred' tree & a symbolic marriage.

What we have in LotR is a story that works on two levels. One is as a straightforward fairy story, which can be read as simple entertainment. The other level is highly symbolic (& 'consciously so' as Tolkien admitted).

Of course, one can read, & explore, the story on the level of fairytale, leaving out the symbolism, but that is to miss a great deal of what Tolkien put in there.

There is constant 'symbolic' overshadowing running through the story - some deliberate, some unconscious on Tolkien's part. Much of it, admittedly, he only came to realise later, after finishing the story, yet, he has told us that it is consciously Catholic, & I can't see the point in refusing to acknowledge that.

[mark12_30]

davem, I'm quite familiar with (and fond of) all that you quote. Nor do I doubt one word of it from the professor's standpoint (or indeed from any standpoint!)

However I find it *very* significant that he did *not* point these things out in his prologue. I think Mister Underhill is very much on target when he talks about Tolkien's modesty and lurking ambition.

Maybe "false modesty" isn't quite right. I think he has an agenda of sorts when he protests that LotR is only a story. I'm reminded of Letter 131: "[The Arthurian mythos] is involved in, and explicitly contains the Christian religion. For reasons which I will not elaborate, that seems to me fatal." I wish he would have elaborated, but I think we can get the gist of those reasons. To call attention to any meaning of his story is to transform it instantly into a sermon or a lecture, and so he says in effect, hey -- it's just a story; take from it what you will.

But lurking under that is some ambition. Letter 153: "I would claim, if I did not think it presumptuous in one so ill-instructed, to have as one object the elucidation of truth, and the encouragement of good morals in this real world, by the ancient device of exemplifying them in unfamiliar embodiments, that may tend to 'bring them home'."

In other words (my paraphrase)...:

If I tell you what it represents to me in my own heart as I write it and reread it afterwards, then you won't have the joy of discovering that for yourself. Maybe by my not telling you, you'll miss it completely; who knows? But maybe you'll find it, and maybe you'll find deeper things that I didn't even know were there. Either way, if I let the story speak for itself, you'll find what you are meant to find. So just read the story. By the way, don't look for Atom bombs, or communism or fascism or politics, and don't look for the Incarnate Messiah; and don't psychoanalyze me. That's not what I put in there. But read the story. You might find something.

I firmly believe he is (desperately) hoping that we do, because On Faery Stories states the purpose of myth & Faery tale, and implies that he wants us to reach that. But if we start out looking for it, we just might miss the story.

[Mister Underhill]

I for one am not refuting the religious influence in LotR or the obvious (and perhaps not so obvious) symbolic connections. I think, however, that you might be overreaching in your close correlation between Tolkien's religion and his fiction, moving it beyond symbolism and into allegory: lembas equals the Host.

I see your Letter and raise you:

Theologically (if the term is not too grandiose) I imagine the picture to be less dissonant from what some (including myself) believe to be the truth. But since I have deliberately written a tale, which is built on or out of certain 'religious' ideas, but is not an allegory of them (or anything else), and does not mention them overtly, still less preach them, I will not now depart from that mode, and venture on theological disquisition for which I am not fitted.

#211

When Tolkien denies allegorical intent, both here in the Foreword and in many other places, I don't see why we shouldn't take him at his word. He understood that implicit expressions of the truth as he saw it -- through the actions and decisions and attitudes of his characters -- would be far more persuasive (not to mention accessible and applicable) than overt sermonizing and allegory.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

Firefoot, your post is the kind I wish we had more of on this thread! As interesting and enlightening as the discussions of the letters pertaining to the Foreword are, I think we need to remember the first impact that reading this book had on us. I've always read Forewords, but I don't specifically remember my impressions of this one - it's been many years since I first read the book. Thanks for sharing your experience with us!

[The Saucepan Man]

Thumbing through Tolkien's Letters, I rediscovered the following passage in a draft of a letter addressed to Peter Szabo Szentmihalyi (Letter #329):

One of my strongest opinions is that the investigation of an author's biography (or such other glimpses of his 'personality' as can be gleaned by the curious) is an entirely vain and false approach to his works - and especially to a work of narrative art, of which the object aimed at by the author was to be enjoyed as such: to be read with literary pleasure. So that any reader whom the author has (to his great satisfaction) succeeded in 'pleasing' (exciting, engrossing, moving etc.), should, if he wishes others to be similarly pleased, endeavour in his own words, with only the book itself as a source, to induce them to read it for literary pleasure.

It seems to me that this sums up in even more strident terms the 'guidance' that Tolkien is giving his readers in the (Second) Foreword: "Here is my tale. I wrote it simply with the intention that you should derive pleasure from it. Go ahead. Read it and enjoy."

Whatever other (unexpressed) motives he may or may not have had in writing the book seem to me to be irrelevant in any analysis of the Foreword. What really matters is the message that it conveys to his readers. And that is simply that he wrote the story with the intention that they should enjoy it.

[davem]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

Whatever other (unexpressed) motives he may or may not have had in writing the book seem to me to be irrelevant in any analysis of the Foreword. What really matters is the message that it conveys to his readers. And that is simply that he wrote the story with the intention that they should enjoy it.

But if the 'message that it conveys to his readers' includes the religious, specifically Catholic, dimension should we ignore that? It would seem to me as wrong to do that as to ignore the Pagan mythological or historical influences/dimension. Is there no 'connection' between three 'racial' groups of Hobbits led into Eriador by two brothers & the Angles, Saxons & Jutes led into England by the brothers Hengist & Horsa, for instance.

What I'm saying is that both consciously & unconsciously, Catholicism underlies LotR. Its present. I can't accept that Tolkien would choose the two most significant dates in the Christian calendar for two of the most significant events in his story without realising that significance until someone points it out to him later. If Tolkien didn't realise that March 25th was of the greatest importance from the Christian perspective, & choose to 'commemorate' the Middle Earth event with the Eagle's song (which as Shippey points out uses the style & metre of the Psalms of the King James Bible) with lines including:

'Sing & rejoice, ye people of the Tower of Guard,
For your watch hath not been in vain,
And the Black Gate is broken,
And your King has passed through & he is victorious.

Sing & be glad, all ye children of the West
for your King shall come again,
And he shall dwell among you
all the days of your life.'

Too much of this king of thing runs beneath the surface of the story. His description of Elbereth in 'The Road Goes Ever On' :

As a 'divine' or 'angelic' person Varda/Elbereth could be said to be 'looking afar from Heaven' (as in Sam's invocation); hence the present participle. She was often thought of, or depicted, as standing on a great height looking towards Middle Earth, with eyes that penetrated the shadows, & listening to the cries for aid of Elves (& men) in peril or grief. Frodo (vol 1, p208) & Sam both invoke her in moments of extreme peril. The Elves sing hymns to her. (These & other references to religion in The Lord of the Rings are frequently overlooked)

is a 'mythologised' account of the Virgin Mary as 'Queen of Heaven'.

Look, I'm happy to leave out of this discussion any Catholic, folkloric, historic or linguistic references/investigations, but I think that would leave out Tolkien himself, to a great extent. All those elements, including also his personal experiences - particularly his wartime experiences - have produced LotR, but they are all successfully mythologised, & Middle Earth is a perfectly realised, self contained world. But if we exclude the sources, & the personal dimension, what the events of the story signified for Tolkien, how can we include our own personal responses, & the meaning the story has for us. I'm not a Catholic (I wouldn't even call myself a Christian) but when I read of Galadriel's gift of Lembas to the Fellowship the Middle Earth dimension is 'overshadowed' (not cancelled out) for me by the Catholic dimension, & the meaning of the former event resonates with the latter. Just as when I walk through any wood my experience is overshadowed by thoughts of Lorien or Fangorn. This is why LotR is not, & cannot be, for me merely an entertaining story. And this is not a 'choice' I'm making - it is simply how I respond to the story. I think if we remove all such 'resonances' & overshadowings from our experience (if that were possible) we'd be left with the simple 'escapism' that our critics accuse us of.

I love LotR not because of what it is, but because of what it means to me, personally. If the book belongs in some sense to each reader, then each reader's response is valid. If I read it in the way I do, with all the 'resonances; & 'overshadowings' I find in it, then that's valid - or do we exclude 'applicability' from this discussion as well as 'allegory'?

Hopefully, no-one feels that they have to accept my interpretations. I'm simply pointing out what I feel are the 'overshadowings' I percieve in the work, & arguing that some of them are there because Tolkien deliberately placed them there.

[The Saucepan Man]

But if the 'message that it conveys to his readers' includes the religious, specifically Catholic, dimension should we ignore that?

Davem, I was talking about the Foreword. I of course agree that the matters to which you refer (including one's personal response to the text) are entirely valid and relevant in any discussion of the book itself and the individual chapters that we will be working through. My point was that, in any analysis of the Foreword as a foreword, the emphasis should be on how Tolkien chose to use this opportunity to speak to his readers before they set about reading the story, ie what message he chose to convey to them in the Foreword, and on how we, as readers, respond to that message.

[Child of the 7th Age]

Davem,

The specific points you are making in regard to Tolkien and the Catholic influence on his writing are certainly valid. Few would dispute that Tolkien's religious sensibilities are indirectly reflected in much of his writing. And all the examples that you've given -- the figure of Galadriel, lembas, the "hymns" to Elbereth, the similarities between some of the poetry and the Psalms--are wonderful instances of this kind of feeling percolating up from underneath.

A number of years ago, Littlemanpoet and I went at it hammer and tongs in a thread where we tried to find such examples and consider how these related to the varying drafts in HoMe, i.e, whether or not the "Christian" elements were indeed the product of later revisions as Tolkien maintained. And I am quite sure that as we go through the book, chapter-by-chapter, there will be many intriguing examples put forward of this type. I honestly don't think anyone is suggesting that this process isn't important.

Yet, in the end, I must concur with the assessment that SpM has given:

Whatever other (unexpressed) motives he may or may not have had in writing the book seem to me to be irrelevant in any analysis of the Foreword. What really matters is the message that it conveys to his readers. And that is simply that he wrote the story with the intention that they should enjoy it.

In terms of the second foreward itself, Tolkien has clearly stated the following:

I much prefer history, true or feigned, with its varied applicability to the thought and experience of readers. I think that many confuse 'applicability' with 'allegory'; but the one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other in the purposed domination of the author.

The italics are my own. These words are critical because they underline the fact that Tolkien is not asking us to respond to the text in the identical way that he did. He is asking each of us to come at things from our own background and experience. I am not a Catholic, nor am I a Christian. While I may have an intellectual understanding of Catholicism and Christianity, I can not replicate the exact mental and spiritual approach that Tolkien took to his material. My personal motives in approaching the text will not be the same as Tolkien's. Nor is the author asking me to do this. He has stated in the foreward that I can deal with the story on my own terms, prompted by my own individual motivations.

Yes, it is always helpful to understand how the author approaches something, whether this is a question of Christian influences or the many other type of personal beliefs and values that are so clearly evident in LotR. For many of us, those glimpses of Tolkien's persona will indeed merge with what is in our own hearts so that the "overshadowing" placed there by the author (either consciously or subconsciously) will become part of our own emotional and intellectual response to the text. In some cases, where our personal background or preferences merge with those of Tolkien, this will be one means by which we can perhaps see over the "wall" and catch a glimpse of faerie, almost as if we were medieval men, small in stature but standing on the shoulders of the "great ones" that came before us.

Similarly, there are certain images and values that I see mirrored in LotR, which have special meaning for me: namely, Tolkien's mistrust of the machine and his intense desire to protect the environment. In one of the few interviews with CT regarding his father's work, his son flatly stated that his dad had identified these as among the most important themes within the book. I am very aware of "overshadowings" of this type in the text, probably because there are aspects of my own past experiences that resonate with that. For this reason, I will probably place greater stress on such ideas than another poster might.

The problem does not lie in my identifying such themes and examples as important. Rather, the problem would come if I insisted that this was the only way to see and interpret certain things. If I was to do that, I would thrust aside the very thing that Tolkien was praising: "the varied applicability to the thought and experience of the reader."

I am not saying you are doing this. Indeed, you clearly stated that you don't feel others should feel compelled to accept your own interpretations. By the same context. however, I honestly don't think that SpM is saying that we should ignore the religious or Catholic aspects we see in the text, which is what your own first paragraph implied. (SpM -- If I have misinterpreted you, please correct me.)

Rather, the core message of the second foreward is precisely to praise that diversity of backgrounds and responses: for indeed it mirrors the incredible diversity of goodness we find in Middle-earth itself. We are not locked into one way of looking at things, but can each approach the story from our own vantage point and, in so doing, find enjoyment and entertainment. Tolkien openly states that he hopes this story will at times "deeply move" us. To me, those last words say it all. The most profound meaning, the most intense learning, take place when we are touched in our inner soul. Tolkien is not saying or defining exactly how that will happen--whether through love of trees, love of our fellows, or love of God. He leaves that to our own imagination and ways of approaching things. But he does hope that somehow, someway, that kind of valuable one-on-one interaction between reader and text will occur.

P.S. SpM -- It took me so long to hack this out, that you and I managed to cross-post!

[mark12_30]

Child wrote:

Tolkien openly states that he hopes this story will at times "deeply move" us. To me, those last words say it all. The most profound meaning, the most intense learning, take place when we are touched in our inner soul. Tolkien is not saying or defining exactly how that will happen--whether through love of trees, love of our fellows, or love of God.

Child, you have here said in a few brief sentences what I have so struggled to say... As a writer of stories, I heartily sympathize with Tolkien in his foreword. Been there; held my tongue just so; til I had a chance to vent in private, that is...

It's good to remember that his letters are private, and so some of these declarations of types and shadows (Catholic-style) were intended to be private. His lectures and essays are another matter of course, and I think from On Faery Stories we know that Tolkien did have ulterior motives.

But he did not declare them in his foreword. And I think if he had, he would have stolen his own thunder.

[davem]

Having been rightly taken to task , I must apologise. My explanation is that, being restricted to the forword I was attempting, at first, to analyse Tolkien's claim that the work has no inner meaning. Let me quote from John Crowley's novel Aegypt:

Dawn came; Doctor Dee wrote out in his scribble hand (he had four different hands he wrote in, besides a mirror hand) one meaning of Mr Talbot's book:

IF EVER SOM POWR WITH 3 WISHES TO GRANT

Which made little sense to him. But if he went backward - backward through the forest where the rooks called in the hawthorns along the track below the fortress, backward through the ogham & the Greek & the stars & the letters & the numbers, the same line could be read this way:

THERE WERE ANGELS IN ye GLASS 246 MANY OF THEM

And that made his heart pause for an instant, & fill again with a richer blood.

What I'm saying is LotR is a book which can be read in two ways, on two levels. One way of reading it gives us an entertaining, moving, work of art, a story. The other way of reading it gives us an exploration of Catholicism, language, history, folkore, the nature of time & most importantly of the man himself, the artist.

Of course, we must read it in one way or the other each time - if we try to read it as a story, continually stopping to analyse its other 'meaning', the ingredients of the 'soup', we are breaking it to find out what it is made of. Conversely, if we read it as an exploration of the themes & ideas I mentioned, & stop to find how Tolkien used those themes, the story will not affect us.

My point is LotR is both things. Yet these two things overlap - & that overlap is sometimes intentional, & the intervention of those themes & sources give a significance to the story. The dates of the birth & death of Christ are used by Tolkien to enhance the significance of the events in the story. This calls into question for me at least the claim made by Tolkien that the story has no 'inner meaning'.

This exploration of the Forword seemed to me the only place where such points could be made.

As I said, I am happy for this reading to focus solely on the 'story'. The underlying themes can be put aside totally - because the story is self contained, & Tolkien no doubt wanted it to be read in this way, yet, as Shippey & Flieger among others have shown, the other LotR is also there, under the surface, for those who wish to explore it, & it is just as much LotR.

It interests me - that's all I can say - that Tolkien should 'mythologise' the Virgin Mary into Elbereth - who is not in any way a figure drawn from Norse, or any other, mythology. Yet the 'Queen of Heaven' is present in Middle Earth, as one of the most significant 'off-screen' figures in the story, & Galadriel is present, as almost a manifestation of her, in the woods of Lothlorien.

Yet, I have strayed from the point - though beginning with the statement of the author that the tale had no inner meaning. I still don't believe that - though I accept that Tolkien may have wanted that to be true, or wanted us to believe it, at least.

I will, however try to curb my tendency to 'preach'.

Sorry.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

I had to go back and re-re-read the Foreword to once again get my bearings in this (very interesting) discussion. The thing that struck me about the Foreword this time through – both of them, actually – is the invitation that the author extends to the reader to engage in a dialogue. What came through to me very clearly is the conversational tone of both pieces, and the sense that Tolkien is replying or responding directly to his readers. The significant difference that I see between the two Forewords is that the ‘first’ is addressed to a much smaller group of readers. In this sense the Forewords are very much a ‘forward’ look to the conversation that is about to begin – that’s very much how I think we all wish to think about The Lord of the Rings. Despite the differences in what we find therein, I think that all of us have a very real sense of carrying on a dialogue either with the text, with the author (through the text), or with each other (about the text). Some of us privilege or prefer the conversation with the author, while others prefer the conversations with the text or each other: none of us, I think, is claiming that any one of these conversations is the “only” or the “best” one, we just disagree about which one is the most interesting, fruitful or productive.

I, for my part, tend to privilege each of them at different times and in different manners – and in this regard I think that I am like everyone else here. When reading the book as a pleasurable story, I think of if as a conversation with the text as I concern myself with what I ‘get’ out of it. When approaching it somewhat more critically, I like to engage in conversations with others about the text in order to broaden or extend my understanding (the Socratic method is still, far and away, the hands-down best method to learn, after all!). When I want to learn about or explore the composition of the text, or how it came into being, I have a conversation with the author. All of these modes or kinds of conversation are necessary for a full understanding of the text and I am delighted to see that they are all going on at the moment – this bodes well, I think, for the discussions to come when we get into the ‘actual’ book.

I offer all of this here because I think that there is beginning to emerge in this thread something of an unjustified sense of ‘schism’ much like the one that came to dominate the canonicity thread, as different posters privilege different types of conversation. I don’t think this is necessarily a bad thing – quite the reverse, as this has lead to a lot of very interesting discussion. I only wish to point out that we are all of us in total agreement on the most important point here: that the conversations we have about and with the text and the author are all parts of a much larger Conversation: one that can’t ever really be concluded or perhaps even conducted except in a fragmentary and particularised way.

Sidebar: I share with Durelin, Seraphim, Mark 12_30, Alatariel Telemnar, Orofaniel, Child, Bêthberry, and Squatter the sense that it is, at the least, useful and, at the most, necessary, to approach LotR as ‘historical’ insofar as history gives us the greatest scope for conversation. When reading a history, we do not seek the meaning of the events by reducing those to the intentionality of the author (who is the chronicler of the events, not the maker of them); nor do we willy-nilly construct our own meaning for those events without making some reference to the meaning of the events to those caught up in them; nor do we seek the meaning of historical events only through conversations about them with our contemporaries. The point I think that I am making – and if I may be so bold as to suggest that many others are making here as well – the strength and promise of Tolkien’s ‘pretense’ or ‘myth’ or ‘fiction’ that he is chronicling history rather than creating a story encourages us to pursue the many different types of conversation that are necessary to get a full (but by no means complete or total) view of the matter he has recorded for us.

[Durelin]

Originally posted by davem:The point is, though, that LotR is full of such symbolism, which is not present on the surface, but it is there, under the surface

This is a perfect example of taking applicability too far. You may see symbolisms that relate to you, as it is your own mind reading and comprehending. But the symbols I see may be very different, and though I see them, that does not mean that they were placed there. There are just certain aspects of any writing that can be applied to life, religion, anything personal, etc, simply because all literary, historical, etc works were written by human beings. And once their read by human beings...

Originally posted by davem:We can also take the examples of the Fellowship setting out from Rivendell on Dec 25th, & the destruction of the Ring & the Downfall of Barad Dur taking place on Mar 25th - which as Shippey points out is the date of both the Annunciation & the old date of Good Friday.

Think of these as tributes...

Originally posted by Fordim Hedgethistle:The thing that struck me about the Foreword this time through – both of them, actually – is the invitation that the author extends to the reader to engage in a dialogue....In this sense the Forewords are very much a ‘forward’ look to the conversation that is about to begin

I think that this dialogue leading into a conversation just goes to show how necessary it is to explain yourself. Sadly, really, if you do not wish for people to take what you say the wrong way, you must show them that you are joking or serious or happy or sorry, etc. Through showing such emotions when you are having a physical conversation with someone in person, what you are saying can take on a different meaning, usually the true meaning you wish to express. Tolkien, or any author, in their foreword, has a way to express the kind of emotion the following dialogue is in. I said that this is sad, that this is needed, but perhaps it just shows how speech and writing are bonded at their roots, still, though we seem to separate them so much.

Originally posted by Fordim Hedgethistle:All of these modes or kinds of conversation are necessary for a full understanding of the text

What comes to mind is the age of Scholasticism, in which the early Roman Catholic Church attempted to bring classical (Greek and Latin) literature into context with Church dogmas, and, particularly, the Bible. They came to a basic conclusion that a basis of classical learning was needed to fully understand the Bible. The fact that the Bible emerged from the time of classical literature and was a literary work makes it an 'offspring' of the classics, the next generation. The study of classical literature gives you an idea of where the Bible and it's teachings are coming from. Perhaps it is best that you know where anything you read is coming from, and the more distant what you are reading is from you, the more difficult determining where it's coming from is. Could forewords, appendices, etc, all be considered necessary backing for understanding?

*Note: please excuse all useless ramblings. I just got out of a biology exam!

-Durelin

[davem]

Think of these as tributes...

In what sense? Either they don't belong in the story, or they are placed there deliberately. They either shouldn't be there, if the story is to stand alone as a self contained story set in a self contained world, or they are chosen for a specific reason.

This brings us to the question of what Tolkien was doing. Was he really writing a story which had no specific inner meaning, or relevance to the primary world? Or at least no meaning beyond what the individual reader could find there. Did he have any hopes for the story, did he want it to produce any particular effect - beyond the emotional responses he mentions in the forword? And if the work did produce more profund effects in the reader, would he have disowned 'responsibility'?

His exploration of the nature of time & our experience of it, of language, of myth. Its all in the book - deliberately placed there. So does he want us to pick up on that or simply be carried along by the effect of those things - part of the 'spell' he is casting? Does he wish us to read the novel in that 'other' way I described? Its a Catholic work, as he said - does he want us to read it in that way, or is that 'private'? Or does his opinion in that count?

Are such things too personal to him, so that he will go out of his way to disuade us, as in the second forword, from exploring those things, seeking them in the novel? Why introduce the Incarnation into Middle Earth (Athrabeth). In his later writings he seems almost driven to Christianise Middle Earth, bring it into line with the history of this world - would he have published this, if given the chance, or would it have remained private?

All I have are questions. The Christianity is too blatant - perhaps necessarily, given the man. He is clearly writing about things he loves, but he's disguising them - though he disguises them less & less the older he gets. The Legendarium becomes increasingly a reflection of the man himself. How detached from it was he able to be at the time he wrote LotR? It seems that in the first forword he was closer to it (or it closer to him) than he was when he wrote the second one, but is that the case? And his tendency to refer to the devil as Sauron - in the essay its stated he considered the sacraments as a defense against Sauron. Men with chainsaws are 'Orcs'. Is this simple 'applicability'? or has the myth overlaid the primary world to the extent that they in the end they became one?

Perhaps in his mind Elbereth was the Virgin Mary - or her 'manifestation' in Middle Earth, so that Middle Earth really was this world 'seen through enchanted eyes'. In that case how could we treat Middle Earth as a stand alone work of art? To what extent was he able to detach himself from his creation, or to detach this world from the world he had invented?

Or should we even care? If Middle Earth can stand alone, shouldn't it? My weakness in this context is that I can't divorce the artist from the art. It all blurs together in my mind as perhaps it did in his. Perhaps he saw this as a problem, that if it happened it would stop the reader truly appreciating his creation - maybe this is why he refused to write an autobiography. Its interesting to speculate on - because I can't do it any longer - what we would come up with if we only had LotR & Hobbit. If we had no letters, biography, HoME, just the books he published in his lifetime. Yet, did he really want that? If he did then why re-write the forword - the first places him as detached translator, the second is his admission, his claim to be its inventor. It becomes his work, the product of his mind, & brings an invitation to speculate on why he wrote what he did. In the first one he claims he has nothing to do with its content, in the second he claims he has everything to do with it - it takes on a biographical dimension - he even gives us some biography, telling us that he fought in the first world war, that he has a son who fought in the second, that he suffered from writers block, he gives us his opinion on literary critics, & by extension on modern literature. He tells us that he has been affected by his experiences - inviting us to specualte on those experiences, & the way in which they affected him. He tells us about the loss of his childhood friends, & the pain he suffered at he loss of the places he knew as a child. He even gives us information about his financial state - he couldn't afford to pay a typist (we know from the essay I quoted). He even tells us that he was not too organised - 'I have failed to keep my notes in order'.

He is making himself a part of the story - he is not 'playing the game'. He is stating clearly that this story is his invention, that it has come from his mind & out of his own experience. He tells us a great deal about himself. We get to know a lot about him. He must want us to. To say the story has no 'inner' meaning or message is almost to claim that he himself has none, or at least none to communicate - yet doesn't any author wish above all to communicate?

Could he really have written a story that didn't reflect himself, his beliefs & the things that moved him? Yet are those things that have no inner meaning? Or perhaps he is saying that the meaning is not concealed - it is out in the open, for those who can see it. Perhaps for him it is such a blatantly Catholic work that he thought it would be obvious to others, that he expected attentive readers to see Mary in Galadriel & Elbereth - that for them that would not constitute an 'inner' meaning. In that case Galadriel wouldn't be an 'allegory' of Mary, she would be Mary, by another name.

All speculation, yet genuine, & not intended to be 'provocative'. I accept Durelin's point:

This is a perfect example of taking applicability too far. You may see symbolisms that relate to you, as it is your own mind reading and comprehending.

Maybe I am. Yet my 'applicability' corresponds in part with Tolkien's own - Elbereth & Galadriel as Mary, Lembas as the Host - not that either of us has any claim to being right in it. If Tolkien tells us that Elbereth = Mary, or Lembas = the Host, or that they are the Middle Earth equivalent or 'echo' of them, no-one has to accept that, if Middle Earth is taken as a 'historical' place, with its own existence, not as the invention of JRR Tolkien, & as such a reflection of him. Tolkien would probably have said that the reader did not need to see Elbereth as Mary, but would he have denied any connection, would he have rejected the idea out of hand?

So we end up back at the original 'conflict' - do we approach Middle Earth as being an 'objective' historical place, which we can enter, analyse within its own terms, or do we see it as Tolkien's creation? Is there any room for Tolkien - or should there be? Does he want to be there - does he want us to include him?

That's another question I can't answer.

[Fingolfin II]

That's a very interesting post, davem. It's a pity I can't quote you as it would take up the whole page .

Tolkien didn't create Arda and it's inhabitants from nowhere- he based it on the real world and borrowed a lot from Beowulf and Christianity. I certainly agree with you when you say that as he got older, his work seemed more "personalised" and included his own thoughts and beliefs more than previously, where he was keen to wave aside any deeper meaning in his books. The Ultimate God (Eru) and the demi-gods (the Valar) are very similar to Greek mythology and Tolkien has gone to extreme lengths to make these works 'his own' as much as possible.

One possible solution is that after writing the Lord of the Rings and the Silmarillion - both momentous works - is that though there were parallels between Christian beliefs (i.e. Elbereth=Mary), these were not intended- subconscious ideas if you would like to label it that way. As he got older, maybe Tolkien became more attached to his works and gave it more of his own personal touch and liked us to be both 'carried along' by the books and create a universe that we can indentify with, though his works are fantasy.

Tar-ancalime said:

Both Tolkien and Bronte are quite right to step back and let their readers find what they will in their stories.

I think he/she has absolutely hit the nail on the head here, since Tolkien's world is very similar to ours and becomes more 'Christianised' in his later works, as you correctly said davem. So as for any 'inner meaning', I believe Tolkien intended to write his works, base it on the real world and leave the reader to search for watever they may be looking for in his books. Most authors have a certain moral or meaning that they wish to convey to the reader, but some (like Tolkien) prefer the reader to find that meaning themselves.

So we end up back at the original 'conflict' - do we approach Middle Earth as being an 'objective' historical place, which we can enter, analyse within its own terms, or do we see it as Tolkien's creation? Is there any room for Tolkien - or should there be? Does he want to be there - does he want us to include him?

As I said earlier, Tokien's stories - like most other myths - are always based on something else. In this case it is based on several stories and beliefs, Christianity prevalent amongst them. So, therefore I think the overall story should be seen as Tolkien's creation, though the concepts behind it are older and not his. I mean, all original fantasy stories are figments of the authors' imaginations, though their content can't be entirely original, as it all needs to be related in a world that we know, or can at least partially understand.

As for the last part of your question, I think you're right in saying it can't really be answered as only the Professor really knows.

[mark12_30]

"

Some who have read the book, or at any rate have reviewed it, have found it boring, absurd, or contemptible..."

Many of those on this thread have read the book already.

Which parts did you find boring, absurd, or contemptible the *FIRST* time you read the book? If you've read the book more than once, what do you think of those parts now? Has your opinion changed? Why or why not? Be brief, succinct-- and be honest, now!

(I bring this up because I expect that we will all have a better, deeper appreciation of those "boring/absurd/contemptible" sections after this project! So this is a way of taking stock before we begin.)

'*************************

Since we haven't gotten there yet, we'd best keep these to a brief summary. I will start.

Tom Bombadil. I thought he was the wierdest thing going. In some ways I still do and in some ways I really enjoy him. Reading posts about him on this board did help me alter my opinion somewhat.

The Barrow Downs. Huh? It lost me completely. I just had to get past it. Same with Midgewater.

The songs. I blush to admit it but the first time I read the book I skimmed or skipped them. I love them now.

In short, I struggled terribly through book one and thought it all rather dull. It wasn't til they left Rivendell that it picked up for me. (No assassination attempts, please. I was twelve at the time! ) For two decades, I majored in the mannish parts of the book, and found the purely hobbitish parts less interesting.

Again, I love the hobbit-centric sections best now. How one does change.

Anyone else care to chime in?

ps.
boring: The bloomin' detailed descriptions of EVERY landscape feature and EVERY campsite. "Where's the dialog!!"
Thirty years later: "Oh, that description of dreary barren wasteland is so evocative and so heartbreaking..."

[tar-ancalime]

ps.
boring: The bloomin' detailed descriptions of EVERY landscape feature and EVERY campsite. "Where's the dialog!!"
Thirty years later: "Oh, that description of dreary barren wasteland is so evocative and so heartbreaking..."

Exactly what I was going to say! I used to scan the pages, looking for "something to happen!" I remember finding the descriptive writing during the first travels of the Fellowship ("The Ring Goes South") especially dull. Who cared what the country looked like? When were they going to meet some more interesting people?

But now as I read the book I find the descriptions to be some of the most precious passages. They're so evocative and so vital to the story--the landscape always furthers the story and is never irrelevant. For example, would the adventure in the Barrow-Downs seem so liminal without the long passages describing the crests of each hill in turn and the hotter and hotter weather? The very landscape builds the tension like the humid weather before a thunderstorm, and by the time the hobbits fall asleep under the standing stone it's clear that something very, very sinister is about to happen.

[The Barrow-Wight]

Please let's stick to the appropriate chapter/part. We're veering off into some tangents that would make better stand-alone topics than part of this discussion.

[Mister Underhill]

First, a quick Moderating Note:

Now that we're underway and things are taking shape, I'd like to make a few suggestions.

We usually let discussions in Books have their head, but I think it would enrich the Chapter-by-Chapter project for us to remain more tightly focused on the matter at hand -- namely, the section of the book that is under examination.

This doesn't mean we can't dig deep or consider outside sources, but I'd like to encourage members to make an effort to stay on topic. If you find your post is starting to draw in characters and events that don't happen until a few hundred pages down the line, or is simply rehashing arguments you've already had in other threads, try to rein it in. Characters and events should probably only be discussed in great detail as they arise in the text. Otherwise, we could find ourselves repeating the same pet arguments week after week, and soon only the very few people engaged in the wrestling will be interested in reading it, let alone participating.

Note that this advice is directed at myself as much as anyone else.

I don't want any hurt feelings to come out of these comments. The Foreword in fact provides an overview of the text to come, and I don't think we've wandered too, too far off-base here. But staying focused is something we should all bear in mind moving forward.

Here endeth the Moderating Note.

On a more personal note, upon reflection I think I prefer the original Foreword, and I wish I could cut-and-paste it into my hardback edition. I like the way it's part of the story, too. The second, as davem has observed, smacks of Tolkien trying to reassert control over his work -- to answer his critics and the analysts who had hijacked it over the years. I don't think the book needs anyone to defend it or to tell us how we should or shouldn't think about it. Including the author.

Did I find any parts boring or contemptible? The latter, certainly not. I admit that I was a poetry-skimmer in my youth (still am, to an extent), and I thought Bombadil was a pretty strange duck too.

EDIT: Er... What the Barrow-Wight said.

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

Although it's been a good eleven years since first I read the book, I think I can honestly say that I didn't find a single part of it either boring, absurd or contemptible. The only section that comes close to being the first of these is the index, which isn't intended to be read from beginning to end.

Tolkien's writing wasn't perfect, but the odd awkward phrase or minor inconsistency doesn't merit such condemnation. Tolkien, while recognising inconsistencies in the work, very tellingly says "Some who have read the book, or at any rate have reviewed it..." (italics mine). It may seem childishly unfair of Tolkien to suggest that someone might review a book that they have not, in fact, read, but I can think of two examples of people who had attempted a publicly broadcast review without taking this (one would think) elementary step. The first of these is mentioned by Tom Shippey in J.R.R. Tolkien: Author of the Century, although not by name. Having concluded a radio debate on the subject, one of the panellists admitted privately to Shippey that they had never read The Lord of the Rings; and one of the reviwers on the B.B.C.'s literature popularity contest, The Big Read, also commented on the book after admitting that she had not finished it. While I do not intend to suggest that only those who have not read The Lord of the Rings will fail to find it enthralling, it is interesting to note that Tolkien couldn't resist getting in a dig at his critics, at least some of whom may well have based their opinions on just such lazy and slapdash research.

[Firefoot]

Contemptible parts? None. There is nothing that I can say I completely dislike about the book. Boring? Yes. The first time, I honestly can't remember if I found anything boring, though I think not due to the fact that I was completely enraptured by the whole story. But starting the second time through, there were two parts in particular that I began to skim (even skip!) because I find them boring. They are: Tom Bombadil (he drives me crazy, and the hey dol stuff doesn't help), and Treebeard and the Ents (for which I can find no reason other than it bores me).

As a guide I had only my own feelings for what is appealing or moving

I think it would be interesting to know which parts Tolkien originally meant to be the 'moving or appealing' parts. My guess is that quite frequently, it would be different than what people would think. Many of the deeply moving parts are for me in RotK. There are very few specific examples I can think of from FotR or TTT that are moving. Appealing, yes, very much so, but moving? not nearly so much.

[Aiwendil]

Mister Underhill wrote:

The second, as davem has observed, smacks of Tolkien trying to reassert control over his work -- to answer his critics and the analysts who had hijacked it over the years. I don't think the book needs anyone to defend it or to tell us how we should or shouldn't think about it. Including the author.

I certainly understand and sympathize with this sentiment. There is something very nice about the first foreword - both in its light-hearted fun and in its lack of the stern words found in the second. But when I think about it, I cannot agree that the book doesn't need anyone to defend it or tell us what to think about it. We must not lose sight of the fact that the book was generally (and still is) seriously misinterpreted as being a real allegory by many in the literary establishment (by those that deign to discuss it at all). Tolkien actually meant something when he said that the book is not an allegory, and I think it is good that he said it. It really has been read as being entirely about World War II. I do not think that it is intrusive or domineering of an author to announce what his intention was and was not.

As for finding any parts boring or contemptible on my first reading - alas, my first reading was so early in my childhood that I don't remember it very clearly at all. I do have a vague recollection of finding Book IV somewhat sluggish - though I would certainly not say "boring". To be honest, it remains my least favorite book out of the six, thought I think I have come to appreciate certain aspects of it more fully.

Firefoot wrote:

I think it would be interesting to know which parts Tolkien originally meant to be the 'moving or appealing' parts. My guess is that quite frequently, it would be different than what people would think. Many of the deeply moving parts are for me in RotK. There are very few specific examples I can think of from FotR or TTT that are moving. Appealing, yes, very much so, but moving? not nearly so much.

This doesn't directly answer your question, but there is a letter (and I'm afraid I don't have time to search for a citation at the moment) from after the book's publication wherein Tolkien says that the parts he found the most moving at that time (i.e. after finishing it) were Aragorn's departure from Cerin Amroth in Book II and the coming of the Rohirrim and dawn in Book V. The latter is one of my favorite moments in the book, if not my absolute favorite. The former, I must admit, doesn't affect me all that much. I've never been a huge fan of the Aragorn-Arwen romance; to me it's always felt like a much flatter and more lifeless replica of Beren and Luthien.

[Son of Númenor]

What I was most interested in when re-reading the Foreword was the passage that describes what The Lord of the Rings would have been like if Tolkien had written it as an allegory for World War II.

The real war does not resemble the legendary war in its process or its conclusion. If it had inspired or directed the development of the legend, then certainly the Ring would have been seized and used against Sauron; he would not have been annihilated but enslaved, and Barad-dûr would not have been destroyed but occupied. Saruman, failing to get possession of the Ring, would in the confusion and treacheries of the time have found in Mordor the missing links in his own researches into Ring-lore, and before long he would have made a Great Ring of his own with which to challenge the self-styled Ruler of Middle-earth. In that conflict both sides would have held hobbits in hatred and contempt: they would not long have survived even as slaves" (The Lord of the Rings, "Foreword to the Second Edition," xv).

The allegory described in this alternate tale is pretty straightforward and does not require explanation for the purpose of my post. What was interesting to me in this passage was not the content, but the bitterness with which he describes this bizarro-Lord of the Rings - the wholly negative outcome of the work if it had followed Tolkien's views on WWII. It made me wonder. Though Tolkien stated that any allegorical connection to WWII was out of the question, and that the First World War affected him far more than the Second, what effect did World War II really have on The Lord of the Rings?

Earlier in the Foreword, Tolkien says:

The delay was, of course, also increased by the outbreak of war in 1939, by the end of which year the tale had not yet reached the end of Book One. In spite of the darkness of the next five years I found that the story could not be wholly abandoned, and I plodded on, mostly by night, till I stood by Balin's tomb in Moria. There I halted for a long while. It was almost a year later when I went on and so came to Lothlórien (xiii).

In this account of the writing of the Lord of the Rings, Tolkien fails to mention a crucial part of the novel: the fall of Gandalf in Moria. While he is quick to note in the Letters that Gandalf had to pass through death to become powerful enough to deal with Saruman, Théoden and Denethor, he also notes that

...the return of G. [Gandalf] is as presented in this book a 'defect', and one I was aware of, and probably did not work hard enough to mend" (Letters 203).

Why didn't he work to fix this 'defect' if indeed he was aware of it? Could Tolkien, in the 'darkness' of the time that he wrote the chapters concerning Moria and Lothlórien, have initially intended for Gandalf's death to be permanent? Could he have lost faith in the ideals that Gandalf represented, only to realize later that his reincarnation was vital to the work as a piece transcendent of contemporary comparison or accusation of allegory? Did Gandalf 'represent', to some extent, the values that Tolkien held? Was Gandalf's fall in Moria (unconsciously) a reflection of Tolkien's disillusionment with those values during the World War II years, and his rebirth a way for Tolkien to make the work transcendent of politics and conflict, and make it what he truly wanted it to be: an enjoyable story with a pleasant, unambiguous, traditional morality behind it?

I'm sorry to pose all of these questions without bothering to answer any of them. Of course gaps and antitheses abound, some of the latter posed by the Professor himself, but I would still like to know what you think of my little....erm...shall we call it a lengthy suggestion?

Edit: Sorry. I took such a long time trying to get out what I was trying to say, agonizing over how on earth I was going to say it, and writing it in a way that made some kind of sense to me (not sure if I succeeded; I'll have to read it again in the morning when I've forgotten what I wrote, and when I'm less delirious from cold medication), that I did not get a chance to read Aiwendil's post. Nor did I continue on the thought track that has been at the forefront of this thread.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Son of Númenor

What I was most interested in when re-reading the Foreword was the passage that describes what The Lord of the Rings would have been like if Tolkien had written it as an allegory for World War II. The allegory described in this alternate tale is pretty straightforward and does not require explanation for the purpose of my post. What was interesting to me in this passage was not the content, but the bitterness with which he describes this bizarro-Lord of the Rings - the wholly negative outcome of the work if it had followed Tolkien's views on WWII. It made me wonder. Though Tolkien stated that any allegorical connection to WWII was out of the question, and that the First World War affected him far more than the Second, what effect did World War II really have on The Lord of the Rings? .

I'm also struck by the words in the first foreword:

But not all are interested in such matters, & many who are not may still find the account of those great & valiant deeds worth the reading. It was in that hope that I began the work of translating & selecting the stories of the Red Book, part of which are now presented to Men of a later age, one almost as darkling & ominous as was the Thrid Age that ended with the great years 1418 & 1419 of the Shire long ago

This 'darkling & ominous age' was the post WW2 period, the Cold War. Does he mean that he considered the Cold War worse than WW2? Its strange that he should. Did he fear the possibility of Russian nuclear attack as a worse threat than that of the Nazis? Did he see a Third World War as imminent in the mid fifties? And if he did, then had those fears abated by the mid sixties when he came to re write it? Was his belief that the 50's were 'darkling & ominous' a reflection of his struggles at the time, before the book became successful, & he became 'rich' as a result? And was his success in the 60's reflected in the fact that in the second foreword he can claim it has no 'inner meaning"?

In other words, did he feel during the 50's that it did have some inner meaning - at least to the extent of being able to sustain readers during what he felt to be a world on the brink of destruction? Perhaps by the 60's, optimistic & wealthy, he could dismiss such fears, & felt able to present it as simple entertainment?

[Lhunardawen]

Thank you very much for quoting that part of the Foreword, Son of Numenor! Much as I would like to read all the posts in this thread, time constrains me, so I would just have to find someone who would quote that. I was beginning to give up, but I found your post. Thanks, indeed.

It was easy to see Tolkien's bitterness toward the Second World War when he said that. Forgive me, but I just couldn't help looking at it allegorically. If Tolkien intended LotR to be an allegory of WWII, then who would the poor hobbits be? The innocent "by-standers" that are inevitably affected by the war? If so, why would they be held in hatred and contempt? If not, would it be those who underneath the war are trying to restore peace?

[HerenIstarion]

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

This doesn't directly answer your question, but there is a letter (and I'm afraid I don't have time to search for a citation at the moment) from after the book's publication wherein Tolkien says that the parts he found the most moving at that time (i.e. after finishing it) were Aragorn's departure from Cerin Amroth in Book II and the coming of the Rohirrim and dawn in Book V

I would be glad to be of service:

Letter 165 To the Houghton Mifflin Co. (1955)

I came eventually and by slow degrees to write The Lord of the Rings to satisfy myself: of course without success, at any rate not above 75 percent. But now (when the work is no longer hot, immediate or so personal) certain features of it, and especially certain places, still move me very powerfully. The heart remains in the description of Cerin Amroth (end of Vol. I, Bk. ii, ch. 6), but I am most stirred by the sound of the horses of the Rohirrim at cockcrow; and most grieved by Gollum's failure (just) to repent when interrupted by Sam : this seems to me really like the real world in which the instruments of just retribution are seldom themselves just or holy; and the good are often stumbling blocks. ..

Besides:

Letter 241 From a letter to Jane Neave (September 1962)

...It was not until Christopher was carried off to S. Africa that I forced myself to write Book IV, which was sent out to him bit by bit. That was 1944. (I did not finish the first rough writing till 1949, when I remember blotting the pages (which now represent the welcome of Frodo and Sam on the Field of Cormallen) with tears as I wrote. I then myself typed the whole of that work all VI books out, and then once again in revision (in places many times), mostly on my bed in the attic of the tiny terrace-house to which war had exiled us from the house in which my family had grown up.) But none of that really illuminates 'Leaf by Niggle' much, does it? If it has any virtues, they remain as such, whether you know all this or do not. I hope you think it has some virtue. (But for quite different reasons, I think you may like the personal details. That is because you are a dear, and take an interest in other people, especially as rightly your kin.)...

It is to be said that I can't read the description of Rohirrim arrival to the Pelennor fields without at least shivers down my spine myself, but that is to be more profoundly investigated in chapter discussion to come

cheers

[Mister Underhill]

Aiwendil, you're right that LotR was and is misinterpreted by some critics and "literary establishment" types. But so what? Those who wish to read allegory in the story still do so regardless of Tolkien's denial. I daresay that the vast majority of his readers enjoy the book in exactly the sort of way that he hoped they would.

The letter H-I dredged up contains the exact sentiment, even if he intended it for a different context: "If it has any virtues, they remain as such, whether you know all this [background information] or do not."

[Son of Númenor]

Davem

In other words, did he feel during the 50's that it did have some inner meaning - at least to the extent of being able to sustain readers during what he felt to be a world on the brink of destruction? Perhaps by the 60's, optimistic & wealthy, he could dismiss such fears, & felt able to present it as simple entertainment?

I think it may well be the case that Tolkien ascribed to The Lord of the Rings some special 'meaning' when reflecting upon it in the 1950's. In a letter to Rayner Unwin dated October 24, 1952, Tolkien refers to the impact of the atomic bomb:

Mordor [is] in our midst. And I regret to note that the billowing cloud recently pictured did not mark the fall of Barad-dûr, but was produced by its allies - or at least by persons who have decided to use the Ring for their own (of course most excellent) purposes (Letters - #135, 165).

This is the second time that I note his use of comparison between World War II and The Lord of the Rings - or, more specifically, the effect that the insertion of a 'Ring=atomic power' allegory would have on the work. The first, of course, would be the reference to Saruman filling in the missing gaps of Ring-lore in Mordor after Sauron's enslavement. Tolkien's intent in the juxtaposing of his Lord of the Rings with the Lord of the Rings that could have been if it had been an allegory for World War II may well indicate Tolkien's desire for The Lord of the Rings to be, as you said Davem, sustenance for readers whose world felt threatened by the prospect of near-future nuclear war. By the time he wrote the Second Edition Foreword, then, he would have dismissed the work as 'sustenance' and chosen instead to present it to readers as merely an enjoyable tale. By describing in the Foreword what The Lord of the Rings would have been like had it been based upon World War II, he is able to express his discontent with the atomic power that 'won' WWII, and at the same time distance his work from those views for future readers.

[davem]

By the time he wrote the Second Edition Foreword, then, he would have dismissed the work as 'sustenance' and chosen instead to present it to readers as merely an enjoyable tale. By describing in the Foreword what The Lord of the Rings would have been like had it been based upon World War II, he is able to express his discontent with the atomic power that 'won' WWII, and at the same time distance his work from those views for future readers.

Yet some of us still read it for 'sustenance'. Would he have been pleased? Did he find such 'sustenance' in the work? (did he 'love too well the work of his own hands?). I wonder what he felt about the powerful effect the book had on some readers - Carpenter mentions his response to being told of a young man who, on finishing reading LotR, simply began reading it again. Tolkien's response was 'I've ruined their lives'. Did he want to try & prevent that kind of reaction - tell people, 'Look, its entertainment, it has no 'meaning', don't look to it to sustain you in these 'darkling & ominous times'. Its just a 'story' I made up, its only there to entertain you.'

How much of that is an attempt to avoid 'ruining their lives' - did he really feel able to 'let go' of the book, did he still feel responsible for any effect it had on those who read it? The second Forword is quite 'cold' compared to the first. He's almost encouraging the critics dismissal of the work as 'meaningless' nonsense. Did he fear he'd created something too 'powerful'?

[Bêthberry]

[A] young man who, on finishing reading LotR, simply began reading it again. Tolkien's response was 'I've ruined their lives'. Did he want to try & prevent that kind of reaction - tell people, 'Look, its entertainment, it has no 'meaning', don't look to it to sustain you in these 'darkling & ominous times'. Its just a 'story' I made up, its only there to entertain you.'

I rather suspect, davem, this could possibly be another example of Tolkien's self-deprecatory wit. He loves poking fun at himself, as do, actually, many academics, but of course I shall have to find this in the Letters and spend many hours pondering the nuances and the particular correspondent to whom he was writing, and possibly consider the various definitions of 'ruined' in the OED before I offer a fully reasoned argument. Who knows, maybe he meant "runes their lives" as in planning out a secret code for them.

[Durelin]

I've ruined their lives

I've never seen that quote before, but I can certainly imagine Tolkien saying that. Most likely this comes from his wit, but he's also making a good point, if not seriously. Really, I think he's just commenting on how seriously these readers have taken his story. And that does not at all call for seriousness on his part! Perhaps he could say the same things about us...

consider the various definitions of 'ruined' in the OED

Oh dear, it haunts us once again...

[davem]

As to the 'ruined their lives' quote - I probably shouldn't have used it, as I know I've read it - was sure it was in the Carpenter biog - but can't find it there. I will try & dig it out. There are numerous similar quotes in Letters & Biog.

Found it - its not in the Biog, its from Donald Swann's forword to The Road Goes Ever On( I did 'misremember' the context of the comment, though):

Along with many others I often found myself desiring to vanish into Middle Earth, to escape utterly into fantasy! On the other hand this was a temptation making one unfit to live in this earth at all; on the other, the phrase Middle-Earth is but a medieval way of describing our own world poised between Heaven & Hell. Is Tolkien’s world of fantasy an escape at all, or do we therein meet ourselves, with all our problems? His books, as those of CS Lewis, include well-nigh perfect creatures, Elves, eldila, great lords & magicians. These heroes, I decided, were bu pardigms of humans with a sense of destiny & purpose; & Frodo, the central hero, carries mortality in the shape of a lasting wound. The heroes of Greek legend were often real people of a past time, only with wings drawn in. To sum up this paragraph, I used to feel that the Tolkien dimension was almost a danger. I then went against this, & decided I would enter it at any time I chose, but with this golden rule (with this phial glowing on my desk?) that i must be able to emerge, to shut the boook, & get up from the chair. If I can’t, I will earn the disapproval of the author. He was an upright man in the real world, & had no intention of casting a spell on anyone. I told him once of a young man who thought he was Frodo. ‘I’ve ruined their lives.’ he said disconsolately.